Friday, October 29, 2010

At a recent debate, Allen West sparred with Ron Klein over terror and national security. Klein's comments were dangerously ignorant.

West stressed the need to be on the lookout for problems in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries. He recognizes that we cannot rely on forced alliances to protect American security. By contrast, Congressman Klein showed his ignorance and his adherence to conventional wisdom as a substitute for terror policy, callously stating that "Iran is the enemy" and that we must bolster the Afghani, Pakistani and other armies. To be sure, the Iranian regime is a huge enemy of the West and even of Saudi Arabia, but focusing on them alone is wrong and dangerous.

In truth, Iran has the largest number of pro-Western citizens of any country in the Middle East, outside of Israel. There is hope for regime change, as long as we can stop radicals like Mousavi from hijacking those reform movements. And of course we need to deal with the current threat and the current regime. But that doesn't mean that we should turn a blind eye on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, as Ron Klein wants us to.

To eradicate terror, we need to show common sense and firm resolve on the international front, as well as introduce domestic policy to end terror recruitment in prisons by sentencing non-violent offenders to work details or military service instead of long prison sentences where large numbers are recruited every year.

There is no simple solution and only a multi-pronged change to domestic policy, coupled with foreign vigilance, will see the terror threat erased. But Ron Klein's position is shockingly ignorant and dangerous to America's security. By contrast, Allen West's is a tremendous step in the right direction.

Congressman Ron Klein has failed to do anything in his four years in Congress and is dangerously naïve on the international front. Colonel Allen West understands global politics and what is needed internationally. It's time to give him an opportunity to lend his voice to solving our most glaring global problem.

On Nov. 2, vote Allen West. The future of America relies on common sense solutions.

Yomin Postelnik

USE THE FOLLOWING AT THE BOTTON OF ALL YOUR POSTS _ DO NOT USE LABLES Tags:Allen WestTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Monday, October 25, 2010

Yomin Postelnik, Chairman, A Better Florida PAC: This term will see redistricting, a once in a decade process by which all congressional, state level and regional seats are redrawn. We need to work hard to elect a Republican governor, unless we want to cede as many as 6 congressional seats to the Dems.

As of this email, we may be well on track to seeing Allen West elected to Congress in South Florida. Alan Grayson appears to be going down to defeat.

But elect Alex Sink as governor and Alan Grayson, Ron Klein, Suzanne Kosmas and Alan Boyd may well be back in two years, not to mention the future of the two new seats being gained by Florida in the process.

The Governor has veto power over any redistricting plan. A Republican governor helps ensure that these seats stay Republican. A Democrat governor would demand compromise from the Florida House and it’s doubtful that Tallahassee leadership would hold the line in great enough numbers and have the media savvy to win that battle.

That’s why electing Rick Scott is absolutely crucial to the Republican effort and why his race is the most important one in this election cycle.

Broward County School Board
District #7 - Travis Williamson
-----------------------------------

Constitutional Amendments

No. 1 – Review and decide
No. 2 – Yes
No. 4 – No
No. 5 – No
No. 6 – No
No. 8 – No - Amendment 8 would only make a bad situation worse. While lack of a qualified hiring campaign, the Teachers’ Unions and an inflexible curriculum are primary causes of stagnation in Florida public schools, raising the class size without improving the curriculum by bringing creativity to the classroom or hiring more qualified teachers would only make a bad situation worse. Every dollar spent PROPERLY on education betters the future of the state and is even fiscally prudent, by leading to savings on criminal justice and juvenile delinquency programs. Increasing the class size without fixing the educational structure is just plain wrong.
--------------------------------------

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

By Leanne Hoagland-Smith:Leanne Hoagland-Smith During the last 40 years and especially the last several, We the People, have become We the Widows. I realized this after listening to my pastor explain the New Testament parable about the Pharisee and the Widow. For in the Greek language, widow meant someone without a voice.

This is one reason why Jesus Christ devoted so much attention to widows and orphans because these individuals had no voices. Their pleas went largely ignored. And when their voices were actually heard it was with arrogance and irritation by the Pharisees who truly believed that they knew better than anyone else. Sound familiar?

Fast forward 2,000 years later to the 2010 election. The widows are now We the People of the United States of America and without a voice. Politicians (think Pharisees) because of their elected authority and presumed power actually believed they could take any action without reprisal after who was going to stop them. Then to add insult to injury these elected and even appointed officials appeared to be irritated when We the People actually questioned why specific actions were being taken such as health care reform or not being take care of such as United States of America border security.

Suddenly the widows began to form groups with other widows. Now their actions caught the attention of the Pharisees who viewed them as discontented, hate mongering to uneducated. Next the Pharisees challenged these widow groups be them Tea Parties to political action committees to even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. After all the Pharisees knew best because they had the louder voices and who were these widows to question their actions? The unmitigated gall of these uneducated, rabble rousing, ungrateful Widows!

Then the Widows found one Widow from the western frontier whose voice was deemed irrelevant to even incompetent by the Pharisees and their supporters. She spoke funny and she truly was not one of them who lived within the center of power and authority.

Though she was once a Pharisee, she threatened the other Pharisees because she actively listened to the widows and had a history of not listening to other Pharisees. This one Widow shared similar pains including being without a voice.

Then the Pharisees and their supporters attempted to ignore this one widow. However, their efforts failed dramatically because the Widows had returned to the foundation of this republic called the United States of America.

For the last 18 months, the Widows continued to move forward and were not deterred by the Pharisees’ action. They continue to assemble even when supporters of the Pharisees identified the Widows (Republican women candidates) as mean. However it is perfectly and legally correct for these same Pharisees to support male citizens who are physically and verbally mean to others through voter intimidation . Yet the good news is that others who have been respectfully quiet Widows are no longer as quiet and are challenging those who are threatened by these strong Widows.

Now with the 2010 election quickly coming to fruition, many who had ignored the Widows are actually starting to listen to these voices. We can see and hear how some elected Pharisees who had supported these questionable policies of health care reform, financial reform and United States of America border security are now distancing themselves and in some cases actually expressing concern about these very same policies.

Yes the 2010 election will be a time for the Widows of the USA to once again be recognized as We The People. Our founding fathers would be very proud and we can take solace that history does repeat itself.Tags:2010 Elections, We the People, commentary, 2010 election, health care reform, Tea Parties, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, United States of America border security, widows, Pharisees To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service: A Movie You CAN'T Afford to Miss. This Friday October 15, I WANT YOUR MONEY – the highly anticipated, hilarious Obama exposé that everyone is talking about - will open in movie theaters nationwide.

If you’re tired of Obama’s big-government-tax-and-spend policies, YOU WILL LOVE THIS MOVIE! I WANT YOUR MONEY is a controversial new film about the competing economic visions championed by Presidents Reagan and Obama – a duel of speeches, wit, animation and narrative that leaves audiences laughing, cheering, yelling . . . and engages them in the national conversation about the mounting national debt, and why it matters. After all, IT’S YOUR MONEY THEY ARE SPENDING.

I screened this movie and then participated in two advanced showings of the film to two very different audiences. One in Washington, D.C and one in the Arkansas Ozark Mountains. The movie resonated with both audiences and it will resonate with a majority of people except for liberal elites. Although a documentary, the movie is interspersed with animated cartoons which allows the viewer time to absorb the material and to have a laugh while points are illustrated. Without these cartoons the movie would indeed be shorter, peoples blood pressure would be elevated, and their minds would have been overtaxed with the reality of the present situation.

There is also hope in this movie as the truth is shared about socialism which is destructive to individual freedoms and the well being of people. The words of Ronald Reagan share how capitalism, individual freedom and choice raises the economic well being of all people at all income levels. Audiences will find finds themselves cheering at the end movie when the "Gipper" takes on Barack Obama.

Take your family and friends to this movie. While the November elections are upon us, this movie will help prepare people for conversations with their elected officials after the elections. It is time to hold them accountable at all levels be it Federal, State, County or City. Remember, it is "your money," your family and friends' money and the money of future generations that the government is taking and wasting.

I Want Your Money includes insightful interviews with Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, Ed Meese, Mike Huckabee, John Stossel, Michael Reagan, Congressmen Tom McClintock, Thad McCotter and former California governor Pete Wilson, among many others, EXPLAINING CLEARLY WHY OBAMA’S PLAN HAS FAILED, AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO RECOVER.

WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING:
- "Don't procrastinate, go to this movie and share what you learn with others!" - Bill Smith, ARRA News Service
- “A must see for Americans!” - Stephen Moore Wall St. Journal
- "Hilarious, highly informative and inspiring!" - MovieGuide
- “A great film; entertaining and very clever!” - Former Attorney General Ed Meese
- “This is not your usual (boring) political documentary. It’s engaging and funny, even as it conveys a serious message about economics and politics.” - Hans A. von Spakovsky, National Review
- “This film will make all American taxpayers laugh, think and, I hope, act to save our jobs, our economy and our future.” - Grover G. Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
- “A Tea Party party!” - Kara Swisher, Wall Street Journal
- “Barack Obama meets Ronald Reagan, in the Oval Office!” - - Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner
- "Ray Griggs' documentary I Want Your Money has achieved the impossible: making the federal government's insatiable appetite for the fruits of your labor both enlightening and entertaining." - U.S. Rep. Thad McCotter, Republican House Policy Committee Chairman
- “Why don’t politicians think like us when it comes to money? Watch I Want Your Money to find out -- and do it before the next election.” - Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women For America
- "I Want Your Money exposes the venality of the Obama economic plan, but does so in a playful, lighthearted way. The result is that its humor is as devastating as its factual revelations." - Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring
- “A sobering yet humorous look at the damage we are doing to our country by shirking our moral responsibility on fiscal discipline. - Tony Perkins, FRC Action President
- “Where's the lefty documentarian Michael Moore? A young conservative Moore wannabe is out with new movie, I WANT YOUR MONEY-pretty good, too!” - Michael Medved, radio talk show host
- "I WANT YOUR MONEY is brilliant, entertaining and very funny. Responsible citizens of voting age should view I WANT YOUR MONEY as required viewing. - Pete Wilson, former Governor of California, US Senator
- “Visually inspiring, spiritually uplifting, bravely accurate and at times hysterically funny.“ - Kerri Houston Toloczko, Institute for Liberty
- “A concise, viewable history of how America got into its economic mess and what policies will free our country's citizens to prosper once again.” - David A Keene, President, American Conservative Union
- “Educational yet fresh and entertaining.“ - Darla Dawald, National Director of ResistNet.com

Monday, October 11, 2010

The president’s job description, found in Article II of the Constitution, is a simple one. He is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He may nominate judges and ambassadors, and make treaties, with the Senate’s approval. He may “give to Congress information of the state of the union,” and “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”—and that’s about it.

Compare this short list of duties to President Obama’s actual activities this month: flying from state to state on Air Force One, attempting to persuade a disillusioned base that Democrats’ policies have helped the country despite all evidence to the contrary, blaming his predecessor for everything from the recession to the weather, and urging voters to get behind Democratic candidates on November 2. For the remainder of October, he will spend few, if any, full days in Washington.

In short, he is desperately trying to hang on to his majority, and has forsaken his legitimate, constitutional duties for the thrill of the campaign trail. Perhaps Obama is only reliving the glory days of his 2008 campaign—which is understandable, considering the level of public animosity towards him a mere two years later—but Americans are not paying him $400,000 per year (plus benefits) to campaign for his buddies.

Obama’s presidency will resume on November 3. Until then, he is the Campaigner-in-Chief of the Democratic Party.

Not that he’s the first, as students of political science will be quick to point out. Clinton campaigned extensively for Democrats in the months leading up to the election of 1994, which, from their perspective, turned out to be a disaster, and other presidents have talked up fellow party members in anticipation of mid-term thrashings, but does the fact that a thing has been done before make it right? Whether it is legal or not, should a sitting president place the welfare of his party before that of the American people?

No. Obama is the President of the United States, not the President of the Democratic Party, and he is paid by the taxpayers to look out for their best interests, not those of career politicians struggling to hold onto their seats. If he is to spend the month of October on the campaign trail, perhaps he should forfeit one-twelfth of his salary, and hand the reins of power to Vice President Biden. Better yet, he should stop campaigning and start doing his job.

Besides, there is no evidence that his backyard talks or staged town hall meetings (which are sponsored by the Democratic National Committee and filled with friendly supporters) will have a positive effect on the mid-term election. Some analysts suspect he’s doing more harm than good, as was probably the case last year when Republicans won a round of special elections, despite Obama’s vocal support for their opponents. This fall, the president’s tour of the country has been marked by silent crowds and frustrated supporters who don’t know what to make of their savior’s failure to keep his campaign promises—and not all are naïve enough to buy into his “Republicans are blocking progress” defense.

If Republicans are as successful next month as they hope to be, and reclaim the House and—less likely—the Senate, Obama will have two years to waste as a “lame duck” president, a figurehead ignored by both Congress and the American people. He’ll have plenty of time in which to enjoy his new hobby, traveling the country and complaining about patriots, which seems to fit his personal version of the president’s job description.

Chris Slavens is a libertarian columnist. He lives in Delaware.

Tags:Obama, 2010 election, Campaigner-in-Chief, President of the United States, U.S. PoliticsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service: Today, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air commented on Peter Ferrara's new book: "President Obama Tax Piracy: Broadside No. 17." In the past, most people would have skipped a book with with economics and facts for a mindless but enjoyable novel providing momentary enjoyment. But TEA Party Patriots, listeners of Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and numerous other conservative talk show hosts, and the memberships of varied conservative organizations and groups have evidenced a growing concern with both the on going and the pending progressive elitists' socialist agenda for America. People are not only reading, they are looking for substance to educate themselves and others very quickly. The comments today by Morrissey interwoven with charts and words by Ferrara should wet your appetite for Ferrara's new book being released in paperback. It costs less than one of those "evil" large greasy burgers and fries. I know it's tough to choose; so, as an example I am ordering everything: the book, the burger and the fries. by Ed Morrissey, Hot Air: Congress left Washington without addressing the massive tax hikes that will come at the end of the year as the tax-rate reductions of 2001 and 2003 expire. Absent action on Capitol Hill, those increases will take $4 trillion out of the economy over the next ten years — and even if the lower tax bracket reductions get extended, $700 billion of capital will get redirected from the private sector to Washington. How will that impact economic growth in the US? Peter Ferrara argues that it will create not just a double-dip recession, but a second economic collapse — one worse than what we experienced in 2008.

In his new treatise published by Encounter for its Broadsides collection, Broadside No. 17: President Obama’s Tax Piracy, Ferrara notes that Barack Obama has chosen the opposite strategy in economic policy from both John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, especially the latter. Reagan cut taxes, especially on capital gains and dividends, and broke down regulatory hurdles. Obama wants not only to raise taxes on those who have the most capital, he wants to make it harder for them to use it as well, quoting a similar analysis by Arthur Laffer:

[W]hen the U.S. economy comes to 2011, the train’s going to come off the tracks. . . . The tax boundary that will occur on January 1 , 2011 tells me that GDP growth in 2010 will be some 6 percent to 8 percent higher than GDP growth in 2011 . A year on year decline from trend of some 6 percent to 8 percent in 2011 growth would represent a larger collapse than occurred in 2008 and early 2009 .

Ferrara includes this helpful and rather cheerless chart to emphasize what Laffer predicts as we hit the “tax boundary”:

On top of that, and in large part because of it, the government won’t see the revenues it expects, either:

President Obam’s budget projects that his tax increases on “the rich” (singles making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000) would raise $678 billion in increased revenue during the next 10 years. The ObamaCare legislation projected another $210 billion from the increased payroll taxes on those workers for a total of nearly $1 trillion. But these tax increases won’t raise anywhere near the revenue projected. Obama will be lucky if this tax piracy doesn’t result in less revenue. . . .

The projections of higher revenues from the other tax rate increases all fail to take into account the negative incentive effects discussed above and the counterproductive interactions from all those effects. Since we know from experience that those incentive effects are powerful and real, the result at a minimum will be less revenue than expected, if not less revenue overall.

This is the problem of static analysis on tax policy. It assumes that the changes in tax policy sets up no other incentives or changes any behavior. Of course it does, though, as do even threatened changes. Ferrara believes that the economy may actually look better than it is this year because capital holders are moving gains and income into 2010 to avoid higher taxes next year. After we hit the tax boundary, all the incentives go the other direction, and that means negative growth across the board.

President Obama’s Tax Piracy gives a worst-case scenario to be sure, but even a milder version of the predicted reaction would be ugly indeed. Ferrara backs up his argument with plenty of data and analysis for a 49-page treatise, the format of the impressive Broadside series. He reviews the results of policy changes in tax law and regulatory expansion and retraction over the past 50 years and draws clear policy implications from all. We have been down both roads before, and often enough to have a map to the destinations of each.

Ferrara’s book will be released in the next couple of weeks, but do yourself a favor and pre-order a copy The price makes it affordable to almost everyone, and also will be released in Kindle format, which I highly recommend.Tags:Barack Obama, tax, piracy, increased taxes, economic collapse, Ed Morrissey, Hot Air, Peter Ferrara, book, Bill Smith, ARRA News ServiceTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to Conservative Voices. Thanks!

Monday, October 4, 2010

by Chris Slavens: With the unemployment rate at a depressing 9.5 percent, millions of Americans are stuck at home every day, unable to afford a tank of gas, left with no choice but to endure the injustices of daytime television. The Democrat-controlled Congress couldn’t care less about getting them back to work, but never fear; last week, it tackled a controversial issue that is at least as important as rising unemployment: the volume of television commercials.

The reader probably expects a punch line at this point, but it’s no joke. The Senate’s version of The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (The CALM Act) will require television stations and cable companies to broadcast commercials at the same volume as that of the programs they interrupt. The differences between the conflicting House and Senate versions of the legislation are expected to be worked out during the post-election “lame duck” session, in which Democrats who will have been rejected by their constituents will enact controversial legislation.

“TV viewers should be able to watch their favorite programs without fear of losing their hearing when the show goes to a commercial,” exaggerated Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), one of the bill’s co-sponsors. The legislation was pushed by Democrats, but enjoys bipartisan support—not one of the forty-one Republicans in the Senate voted against it.

One must wonder about the timing of the vote, as members of Congress are returning to their districts to campaign for reelection. “Don’t worry,” they will tell worried voters. “Sure, our anti-business regulations are destroying the economy, and we forced ObamaCare down your throats, but you’ll never have to be startled by a loud commercial again!”

What are they thinking?

Television is an extension of the political establishment’s propaganda division. Through news programs, reality shows, and even children’s cartoons, Americans are taught how to think and behave. Naturally, Democrats want the experience of watching television to be as comfortable as possible for viewers, lest they become fed up with such annoyances as overly-loud commercials and turn to books for entertainment, or, heaven forbid, right-leaning talk radio for news.

In a free market, a bright mind would recognize that loud commercials annoy viewers, and see a business opportunity. Perhaps one television network would voluntarily limit the volume of its commercials, and attract more viewers. Or a commercial volume limiting device could be developed and marketed to couch potatoes.

But Democrats live in a strange world of central government planning, in which they are mentally incapable of imagining that free enterprise could solve a problem. Their knee-jerk reaction to even the slightest inconvenience is to propose a new law. In this case, the “problem” of loud commercials will be solved with new volume regulations, to be enforced by the Federal Communications Commission.

The most ludicrous part of this story is not that Democrats support the legislation; they are expected to unnecessarily interfere in the private sector and overreach their constitutional authority. Minding the business of others comes as naturally to Democrats as urinating on fire hydrants comes to dogs—it’s more a matter of instinct than of conscious choice.

However, Republicans are supposed to favor free enterprise. They are expected to stand between government and the private sector. There has been much speculation about what effect, if any, the growing tea party movement will have on the GOP; the fact that not one Republican Senator opposes government regulation of the volume of television commercials indicates that, amazingly, they just don’t get it.

If the members of Congress can hear loud commercials and decide to do something about them, why can’t they hear the voice of the American people?